Jamie Foxx reportedly up for the villain in ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2′

Your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man will face off against a "shocking" new adversary in "The Amazing Spider-Man 2." According to Variety, Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx is in early talks to play the villain Electro in Sony's superhero sequel to this summer's reboot of the Marvel Comics' franchise.

While the studio hasn't officially commented on casting, Foxx all but confirmed the role Thursday with a post-Halloween tweet:
Dressed up as Electro for Halloween last night. Costume fits well.
— Jamie Foxx (@iamjamiefoxx) November 1, 2012

The classic Spidey villain Electro, aka Maxwell "Max" Dillon, gained the ability to control electricity after being struck by lightning. Created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, he first appeared in "The Amazing Spider-Man #9" in February 1964. Foxx would be a departure from the comic-book character, who has traditionally been depicted as being Caucasian.

There was a hint that Electro would be the villain of the next movie at the end of "The Amazing Spider-Man." In a short scene during the credits, Dr. Curt Conners, aka the Lizard (played by Rhys Ifans), was visited in his jail cell by a mysterious figure obscured in the shadows. The man (played by actor Micheal Masse) asked Connors if he told Peter Parker the truth about his father, and when Connors says no, he disappears with a flash of lightning. This lead some people to assume that figure was supposed to be Electro, but others believe it to be Norman Osborn, who was mentioned throughout the film (and later becomes the villain, Green Goblin).

This would be the first time Electro would appear in a movie, but back in 1991, director James Cameron developed his own "Spider-Man" project that would have featured the character as one of the villains. Cameron's version got caught up in a web of legal issues surrounding the rights, and he eventually left the project, going on to direct "True Lies" and "Titanic." "Spider-Man" wouldn't hit the big screen until the next decade.

Stars Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are set to reprise their roles as Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, respectively, with Shailene Woodley ("The Descendants") reportedly in talks to join the cast as a young Mary Jane Watson. "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" is scheduled to swing into theaters on May 2, 2014. Jamie Foxx will next be seen playing the title role in Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained," opening this Christmas.

UPDATE: In an interview with Collider.com, director Marc Webb confirmed that the villain of the sequel will be Electro. He said, "I think Electro is an incredibly visual, exciting, dangerous villain. So, there's a lot of appealing stuff that's going to happen."

Meh. I preferred the Tobey Maguire/Kirsten Dunst movies. Maybe not the third one, but definitely the first two.

These reboots are getting ridiculous.

Me too, dumbass decision to reboot them.

__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

You guys are all douche noodles. The first spiderman trilogy was way too childish. With the exception of James Franco, William Dafoe, and the guy who played Jameson, the cast was a joke. You guys can keep your Walt Disney spiderman trilogy. The rest of the world will appreciate a spiderman with a more realistic and dark twist.

How are these new Spider Man movies more realistic or darker?

I couldn't even finish the Amazing Spiderman. It's a horrible movie. It's nowhere near as good as the first movie in the Tobey Maguire trilogy.

To be fair, most of Spider-Man's major villains were created in the 60's, when comic book characters weren't exactly nuanced. On the other hand, that same decade gave us Loki, Galactus, Kingpin, Magneto, Juggernaut, Mandarin, Ultron, and Dr. Doom. So, yeah, for being the story of a science wunderkind, Spider-Man is unusually anti-science in this regard.

I really don't like this half Ultimates/ half traditional approach marvel has taken with their movies lately.

__________________

Quote:

"He had no teeth, and he was slobbering all over himself. I'm thinking, 'You can have your money back, just get me out of here. Let me go be an accountant." I can't tell you how badly I wanted out of there."Denver rookie QB John Elway, on Jack Lambert, after Lambert and the Steelers knocked Elway out of his first game as a pro (1983).

They are contractually obligated to do a movie in x amount of time otherwise the rights to Spidey revert back to Marvel. Sony had to really fast track the last movie because the deadline was quickly approaching. I'm not sure of the language, because obviously they can't expect to constantly churn out flicks and not expect it to get tired and diminish expected box office numbers- my guess is its like 7- 10 years max between movies or they lose the rights- which many fanboys would love if Marvel got them back so the character could be used without restriction in the Marvel movies

You guys are all douche noodles. The first spiderman trilogy was way too childish. With the exception of James Franco, William Dafoe, and the guy who played Jameson, the cast was a joke. You guys can keep your Walt Disney spiderman trilogy. The rest of the world will appreciate a spiderman with a more realistic and dark twist.

Here's the problem, though: he's not a dark character. He's a trickster, a fast-talking and flag-waving good guy saving the world while taking care of his elderly aunt. He tries to be a good role model, wears bright colors, and is a teacher by day. He struggles with guilt and sacrifice and doing the right thing, but he's not a gloomy or shadowy guy, like Batman, Daredevil, or Punisher. By trying to make him (and Superman, because they did this same thing in Man of Steel) into a dark, gritty, Batman-ish character, they're losing who he is.

The ones who are doing it right are (no surprise here) the makers of Captain America, and to a lesser extent the rest of the Avengers movies. They kept the characters, and in some cases even made them more interesting, but didn't go all tortured and Chris Nolan.

And by the way, the rest of the world preferred Spider-Man and especially Spider-Man 2 than Amazing Spider-Man. We'll see if Amazing Spider-Man 2 can beat their 89 and 93 percent scores on Rotten Tomatoes, for example.

They are contractually obligated to do a movie in x amount of time otherwise the rights to Spidey revert back to Marvel. Sony had to really fast track the last movie because the deadline was quickly approaching. I'm not sure of the language, because obviously they can't expect to constantly churn out flicks and not expect it to get tired and diminish expected box office numbers- my guess is its like 7- 10 years max between movies or they lose the rights- which many fanboys would love if Marvel got them back so the character could be used without restriction in the Marvel movies

They could have done Spider-Man 4, though, but they knew they'd have to back the money truck up to just about every actor there, and eventually they'd start losing them.